On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:22:09 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > >> I always have doubts about assumptions until >> they're demonstrable by regression to something other than further >> assumptions. > >As Zick provides o evidence that such 'regression' is possible, he must >be totally agnostic about everything.
Don't know what you're getting on about here. Theorems always regress to axioms in math. Such a regression is obviously possible.
>> >What do "absolute falseness" and "universally true" mean? >> >> They're tautological alternatives in that what is not absolutely false >> must perforce be universally and absolutely true. > >Why cannot what is not absolutely false be only conditionally true?
If tautological alternatives exhaust the possibilities for truth as in "A, not A" the honest-to-god absolute truth must rest with one possibility or the other.
>And what is not absolutely true be only conditionally false?
Lots of things which are not absolutely true can be conditionally false. That's a no brainer.